D2013-1583).
(ii) The domain name is a coined name which is neither descriptive nor generic and solely used to designate the complainant’s business (Statoil ASA v. ...Aaron Hall, supra; Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, supra).
(iv) The respondent has failed to explain as to why the domain name was chosen (Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-11 - Case Details
In this context, the Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions on the Burberry
domain name (Burberry Limited v. S.H. Baek, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0334 on ; Burberry Limited v.
...D2004-0984 and Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case
No. D2003-0584), the Complainant believes that the linking of the disputed
domain name to a domain name parking sites cannot be regarded as a legitimate
non-commercial or fair use of this domain name.
...
2006-01-30 - Case Details
It has been consistently held that such absence of use implies the absence of a legitimate interest in the Domain Name (Pivotal Corporation v. Discovery Street Trading Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0648; Baccarat SA v. ...Ltd.; and Baccarat SA v. Web Domain Names, supra).
Further, there is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2010-07-06 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1345). ...D2011-2096 (“the descriptive suffix ‘buyonline’ as used in the disputed domain name cannot save the domain name”); F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Ivan Varypaev,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0112, (“The only difference between the Domain Name and the trademark of the Complainant is the addition of the words ‘buy’ and ‘online’. ...
2020-01-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is also offering the disputed domain name for sale (paragraph 32, Exhibit A to the Complaint). Offering the domain name for sale does not constitute bona fide use of the domain name (Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...A mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name itself (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2017-09-06 - Case Details
Cf. Unibanco-Unãio de Bancos Brasileiros
S.A. v. Vendo Domain Sale WIPO Case No.
D2000-0671, where the domain name in question served "only as a terminating
address for a place marker website." ...The Panel in Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003 found that passive holding of a domain name can be evidence,
in certain circumstances, that a domain name was registered and is being used
in bad faith. ...
2002-01-31 - Case Details
In that case, the panel ordered that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant (Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français v. ...Based on the facts set out by the Complainant and the absence of an explanation from the Respondent for its use of the Complainant's widely known marks and company name in its Domain Name, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name (see Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. v. ...
2010-06-16 - Case Details
D2005-0015), the Disputed Domain Name was registered in a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by typo-squatting (citing Wachovia Corporation v. ...It is well-established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-02-24 - Case Details
The part "wear" will not impact the overall impression of the disputed domain name because it cannot be considered the dominant part of the disputed domain name. See Statoil ASA v. ...See Drexel University v. David Brouda,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0067.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2016-06-24 - Case Details
See, e.g., Ebay Inc. v. Wangming,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1107.
The Complainant states that it must reasonably be inferred that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and the prior use of the domain name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and created a poker website. ...Ravindra Bala,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1059; Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2016-06-24 - Case Details
The inclusion of the ccTLD “.mx” in the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The case file contains no evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Valentino S.p.A. v. ...
2022-03-08 - Case Details
See, e.g., Chanel,
Inc. v. Buybeauty.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-1126
(failure to use domain name supports finding of no legitimate interest) (citing
Mary-Lynne Mondich v. ...CHF Industries, Inc. v. Domain Deluxe,
FA 97532 (Nat Arb. Forum July 26, 2001)(“Respondent intends to use the
domain name in connection with a legitimate business. ...
2007-04-19 - Case Details
Moreover, the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity of the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. ...In such a way the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainants from reflecting the trademarks in a corresponding domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-03-06 - Case Details
Bad faith exists where respondent knew or should have known of complainant’s trademark rights before registering a domain name that incorporates the other’s trademark. Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoo-Asian Company Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...D2011-0051; Allstate Insurance Company v. Moniker Privacy Services / Pablo Palermao,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0198 (“registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith in itself, even without considering other elements”); Allstate Insurance Company v. ...
2011-07-28 - Case Details
Although registration of the disputed domain name predates the complainant’s trademark registrations, this is not relevant to a consideration of this element (see Digital Vision, Ltd v. ...This clearly indicates that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
Further, the addition of “www” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks (see e.g., Rockstar Games v. ...
2011-06-14 - Case Details
It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the SCULPTRA trademark (citing Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...It is well-established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-03-11 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Because the GEA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a domain name, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...This “click-through revenue” typically may be split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see for example Owens Corning v. ...
2010-04-06 - Case Details
iv) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name.
(v) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEGO trademark.
(vi) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...D2009-0135 [finding that the ‘deals’ portion of the disputed domain name ‘may tend, if anything, to increase the likelihood of confusion, because the word indicates endorsement of the domain name by Complainant’, owner of the QVC mark].”)
6 See Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. candrug,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-26 - Case Details
See also Everypath, Inc. v. EPJ,
NAF Claim Number: FA0106000097350, another domain name case involving Brian
Evans, a Las Vegas entertainer, and Ira Levin. ...The Panel found that B. Evans registered that domain name in bad faith.
In Exario Networks Inc. v. The Domain Name You Have Entered Is For Sale, AF-0538 (e Resolution, December 11, 2000), the Panel concluded that the Respondent had engaged in repeated instances of cybersquatting. ...
2002-02-26 - Case Details